June 9, 2017

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

If I have to read one more article blaming liberal condescension toward the red states and the white working class for the election of Trump, I’m moving to Paris, France. These pieces started coming out even before the election and are still pouring down on our heads. Just within the last few weeks, the New Republic had Michael Tomasky deploring “elite liberal suspicion of middle America” for such red-state practices as churchgoing and gun owning and The New York Times had Joan Williams accusing Democrats of impugning the “social honor” of working-class whites by talking about them in demeaning and condescending ways, as exemplified by such phrases as “flyover states,” “trailer trash,” and “plumber’s butt.” Plumber’s butt? That was a new one for me. And that’s not even counting the 92,346 feature stories about rural Trump voters and their heartwarming folkways. (“I played by the rules,” said retired rancher Tom Grady, 66, delving into the Daffodil Diner’s famous rhubarb pie. “Why should I pay for some deadbeat’s trip to Europe?”) I’m still waiting for the deep dives into the hearts and minds of Clinton supporters—what concerns motivated the 94 percent of black women voters who chose her? Is there nothing of interest there? For that matter, why don’t we see explorations of the voters who made up the majority of Trump’s base, people who are not miners or unemployed factory workers but regular Republicans, most quite well-fixed in life? (“I would vote for Satan himself if he promised to cut my taxes,” said Bill Thorberg, a 45-year-old dentist in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. “I’m basically just selfish.”) There are, after all, only around 75,000 coal miners in the entire country, and by now every one of them has been profiled in the Times.

In her fascinating recent book Strangers in Their Own Land, the brilliant sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild asks readers to climb the “empathy wall” and really try to understand the worldview of Trump voters—as she did, spending over five years getting to know white Southern Louisianians, many of them Cajun, who have extreme free-market, anti-government Tea Party politics although they live in “Cancer Alley,” an area where the petrochemical industry, abetted by the Republican politicians they voted for, has destroyed nature, their communities and their health. Hochschild has a deep grasp of human complexity, and her subjects come across as lovely people, despite their politics. As she hoped, I came away with a better understanding of how kindly people could vote for cruel policies, and how people who don’t think they’re racist actually are so.

But here’s my question: Who is telling the Tea Partiers and Trump voters to empathize with the rest of us? Why is it all one way? Hochschild’s subjects have plenty of demeaning preconceptions about liberals and blue-staters—that distant land of hippies, feminazis, and freeloaders of all kinds. Nor do they seem to have much interest in climbing the empathy wall, given that they voted for a racist misogynist who wants to throw 11 million people out of the country and ban people from our shores on the basis of religion (as he keeps admitting on Twitter, even as his administration argues in court that Islam has nothing to do with it). Furthermore, they are the ones who won, despite having almost 3 million fewer votes. Thanks to the founding fathers, red-staters have outsize power in both the Senate and the Electoral College, and with great power comes great responsibility. So shouldn’t they be trying to figure out the strange polyglot population they now dominate from their strongholds in the South and Midwest? What about their stereotypes? How respectful or empathetic is the belief of millions of Trump voters, as established in polls and surveys, that women are more privileged than men, that increasing racial diversity in America is bad for the country, that the travel ban is necessary for national security? How realistic is the conviction, widespread among Trump supporters, that Hillary Clinton is a murderer, President Obama is a Kenyan communist and secret Muslim, and the plain-red cups that Starbucks uses at Christmastime are an insult to Christians? One of Hochschild’s subjects complains that “liberal commentators” refer to people like him as a “redneck.” I’ve listened to liberal commentators for decades and have never heard one use this word. But say it happened once or twice. “Feminazi” went straight from Rush Limbaugh’s mouth to general parlance. One of Hochschild’s most charming subjects, a gospel singer and preacher’s wife, uses it like a normal word. Equating women who want their rights with the genocidal murder of millions? How is that not a vile insult?

4

5

Sorry, self-abasing pundits: If you go by actual deeds, liberals and leftists are the ones with empathy.

I’m sure I have stereotypical views of people who live in red states—including forgetting that, as Tomasky points out, all those places have significant numbers of (churchgoing, gun-owning) liberals. I try not to be prejudiced—most people are pretty nice when you don’t push their buttons—but I probably have my fair share of biases. But so what? What difference does it make if I think believing in the Rapture is nuts, and hunting for pleasure is cruel? So what if I prefer opera to Elvis? What does that have to do with anything important? Empathy and respect are not about kowtowing to someone’s cultural and social preferences. They’re about supporting policies that make people’s lives better, whether they share your values, or your tastes, or not.

How much empathy did Louisiana Republicans show when they elected—and reelected—Bobby Jindal, who, backed by Republican legislators, cut taxes, slashed spending on education, health care, and social programs and gave massive tax breaks to the very petrochemical companies that poisoned Republican voters themselves? In Oklahoma, a growing number of schools are now open only four days a week—voters, ultimately, made the choice to cut taxes instead of pay for a decent education for the state’s children. You can go down the most uncontroversial list of social goods—hospitals, libraries, schools, clean air and water, treatment for mentally ill people and drug addicts—and Republican voters label them Big Government and oppose them. And when the consequences get too big to ignore, as with climate change, they choose to believe whatever nonsense Fox News is promoting that week, as if at least 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists are just “elitists” who think they know so much. True, by the time the world burns to a crisp, today’s voters will mostly be dead, but where’s the empathy for their own grandchildren?

Ready to Fight Back? Sign Up For Take Action Now

Sorry, self-abasing liberal pundits: If you go by actual deeds, liberals and leftists are the ones with empathy. We want everyone to have health care, for example, even those Tea Partiers who in the debate over the Affordable Care Act loudly asserted that people who can’t afford treatment should just die. We want everyone to be decently paid for their labor, no matter how low they wear their pants—somehow the party that claims to be the voice of working people has no problem with paying them so little they’re eligible for food stamps, which that same party wants to take away. We want college to be affordable for everyone—even for the children of parents who didn’t start saving for college when the pregnancy test came out positive. We want everyone to be free to worship as they please—including Muslims—even if we ourselves are nonbelievers.

What should matter in politics is what the government does. Everything else is just flattery, like George H.W. Bush’s oft-cited love of pork rinds. Unfortunately, flattery gets you everywhere.

Off topic, but whatever happened to the sexual assault charges brought against Trump by at least twelve women at the beginning of 2017?

(3)(0)

Hunter Van Valkenburghsays:

June 14, 2017 at 10:20 am

A brilliant column, one of your best in a while.

(4)(0)

Rhonda D Wrightsays:

June 12, 2017 at 4:39 pm

People seem to have forgotten how we got to the Clintons:
1. The Richard Nixon exploited the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination laws and policies to build his Southern Strategy. Then the Religious Right built on that base added to hand-wringing over Roe V. Wade to effectively take over the Republican Party. This voting bloc lead directly to:
2. The three terms of Reagan-Bush, which did serious and long-lasting damage to unions and ultimately to the economy, but also lead to despair among Democrats, who felt that they had no option but to become Republican Lite if they ever wanted to win elections again.
3. And there you have the policies of Clinton, and to a lesser degree Obama: Democrats can't, or maybe can't, win as the party of FDR. Better play it safe and find a Third Way.
4. And now we pay the price.
But in all this, we must not forget that Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, while his party lost ground - not enough ground, but still it lost ground. The People did not elect Trump. Draconian GOP policies are not popular. The blame lies with conservative media liars, the outdated Electoral College, and two decades of Democrat Party leaders who are afraid to be Democrats, not with feminists, people of color, or any other truly liberal group.

(15)(1)

Victor Sciamarellisays:

June 12, 2017 at 3:31 pm

First, before “we” grab the empathy baton, let’s look at liberal and conservative elite power, “Feminazis” and get beyond Limbaugh. If we mean to effect policy, the only organizations tolerated by elites are those created or controlled by elites. They do not expect total acceptance of their views and they can’t prevent others like Labor from speaking out, but as G. William Domhoff wrote, “They have been able to ensure that opposing opinions remain isolated, suspect, and only partially developed…thus the most important role of the ideological network may be in its ability to help ensure that an alternative view does not consolidate…”

Feminism might seem as natural as the sunrise to Katha Pollitt but talk of feminism quickly jumps to subjects like inequality and injustice and elites will attack alternative opinions that challenge the basic assumptions of society and they’ll do what they can to prevent alternative ideas forming a coherent opposition.
Liberal and conservative ideology both promote personal responsibility and individuality, which sounds nice, but it spreads the view that the successful deserve their wealth and success, and the not so well off have largely themselves to blame – that is, opportunities existed but you didn’t do enough for yourself. Some Feminist, Labor, Socialist, and Sanders reject this view and claim a systematic unfairness that favors a certain class.
Rush Limbaugh is an effective mouthpiece for his employer and “Feminazi” serves to discourage and misinform women and men. Liberal power will accept feminists view on abortion and contraception but they will become as ugly as Limbaugh if they suggest Medicare for All or that finance is corrupt and needs to be regulated.

Second, the subtitle, “Progressives want education, health care, and housing for everyone” is clear. That’s why Sanders is the most popular Democrat among Republican voters. But the statement “Liberals and leftists are the ones with empathy” is unclear because it’s no mystery that liberals like Obama, Clinton, or Perez have not shown much empathy and are not committed to the above progressive goals.
If it’s meant that liberals have more empathy than Republicans, then I think we need to raise the bar because there is no reason to get a gold star on your life card if you have more empathy than lunatics.
In addition, it was liberals like the Thomas Friedman’s, Madeleine Albright’s, and Bill Clinton’s of the world who believed – as did President Bush and Co-President Cheney – that freedom and democracy would come to Iraq if we destroyed Iraq’s electrical, water and sewage infrastructure, or implemented an embargo, which by the late 1990s roughly 6,000 infants were dying each month, or blocked $5.4 billion in humanitarian supplies in July 2002 which the UN Security Council had approved and Iraq had paid for, and over which UN official Denis Halliday resigned in protest, calling it “genocide”. Where was the empathy in this? “We the people” might have empathy, and the left more than the right, but I don’t see much of it among either ruling class.

(22)(10)

Yiren Lyusays:

June 14, 2017 at 11:51 am

Exactly.

(2)(0)

Jm Sorrellsays:

June 12, 2017 at 9:40 am

Right on, Ms. Pollitt. I have been saying this for years, too. I lived in the south and mid-west as a child and young adult, and as a Massachusetts progressive lesbian feminist of many years, I could not bear to live in places with sexism, racism, homophobia and other cruel "isms" are the norm. The snarky attitudes towards so-called cultural "elites" is so clearly misdirected anger. Boy, what would happen if a light bulb went off re- who the real ass*!les are. At this stage in my life, I will not give up human kindness/decency principles to placate those who despise me. Me, I may move to Spain. Oh, but wait, I cannot afford it. You see, I work very hard myself with little pay to advocate for older adults near end of life. Just another elite with empathy.

(11)(3)

Kevin Armitagesays:

June 10, 2017 at 10:31 pm

Ive been saying this--not nearly as well as Katha of course--for years. Thanks!

(14)(1)

Timothy Bardellsays:

June 10, 2017 at 3:14 pm

One possible reason for the rural (conservative) vs. urban (liberal) divide is that a lot of government programs (job training, housing assistance, child-care or early-ed) are difficult to provide in a rural setting.

(5)(6)

Kevin Armitagesays:

June 10, 2017 at 10:33 pm

Lots of liberal policies are entirely focused on rural America. Farm subsidies, subsidies for all sort so jobs on public lands--especially in the West--money for rural schools and hospitals, etc....

(20)(0)

Karin Eckvallsays:

June 13, 2017 at 1:42 am

You're mistaken about farm subsidies. The vast majority of the money goes to agribusiness. Obama, Boxer, Feinstein, et. al., in 2016 passed an agriculture bill that cut food stamps and increased taxpayer subsidies for crop insurance, again, with by far the biggest payout to agribiz.

(4)(4)

Stanley Hirtlesays:

June 10, 2017 at 10:07 am

Issues include 1. lack of a vision on a better society being attainable with acceptable sacrifice; 2 lack of trust spanning the class cultural differences that divide us. Working people know that Trump sounds like them while Obama wouldn't let them get into Harvard so he could fail them, and Hillary would never let them near her; 3. institutional factors like the "public square" being replaced by Fox news and am talk radio which dominate the debate and emotional place of America, and "Citizens United" decisions where the rich can outbid the working class for control of the government. Thus Democrats must serve the rich as much as Republicans. 4. the mobility of capital has allowed the jobs people need to migrate to those willing to accept the least. Few believe it is possible to control capital, so you accommodate to power and change the things you can, like condescension; 5. the emotional effect of consumer capitalism and imperial war, fear of crime, terrorism and the "others" that produce them, generate anxiety. Without faith in an alternative, there is nothing to do but love your tribe, protect your stuff and enjoy Trump and the right, who talk like you feel.

(19)(8)

Susan Benton says:

June 10, 2017 at 1:40 am

Hmmm, who is trying to defund
Affordable Healthcare in order to give the wealthy a tax break? Why, its Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Who is in the process of gutting banking regulations and protections for average investors in order to re-create the same situation that resulted in the Great Recession of 2008? Why, its Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell! Who is it that insists on allowing irresponsible dumping of
toxic chemicals used in fracking and the use of pesticides known to be harmful to human health, especially childrens' health? Why, its republicans in Congress! Who is it that insists on doing away with net neutrality for no reason except to create an internet use fee that has never before existed and is totally unnecessary? Why, it's republicans in Congress! Who is against lowering the interest rate on student loans so more people can afford to go to college without having to spend the rest of their lives paying off their student loans? Why, its the
Republicans in Congress! I rest my case.

(33)(4)

Karin Eckvallsays:

June 10, 2017 at 11:58 am

Cherry picking doesn't make your case.

Who deregulated Wall St. in the first place - Clinton. Who squelched serious student loan debt reform because he needed the profits to keep his budget accurate - Obama. Who initiated and who voted for a bankruptcy bill that penalized families and students - Biden and Hillary. Who is so pro-fracking that he appointed an Energy Secretary who'd done research funded by the fossil fuel industry and claimed fracking does no harm - Obama. Who's protecting the fracking industry in CA - Jerry Brown, Mr. somebody's gonna do it, so it might as well be us (the water crisis not withstanding)

The political elites of both parties are guilty. Nothing can change until you drop the My-party-is-better-than-your-party attitude and start criticizing BOTH parties based on principle...and on actions that are truly empathic.

(48)(16)

Kyle Frenchsays:

June 14, 2017 at 12:02 pm

Get your facts straight. Clinton signed the Gram-Leach-Bliley Act which in turn deregulated Wall Street. Gram, Leach and Bliley were all republicans in a republican controlled congress who wrote that bill, not Clinton. Clinton was a coward and signed it out of fear that they would over ride his veto. And, if you look at Bill Clinton as a president, he stole the republican playbook and ran as a democrat who preached more liberal social policies than his GOP counterparts....that's about all that separated him from Bush Sr. and Dole. He was and is just as conservative as the old GOP candidates were. The democratic party ceased to be as soon as Clinton was nominated. From there we've had two republican parties running the country. Both of them have slashed programs for the poor while further enriching the rich. I'm not saying both parties are equal because the GOP doesn't even pretend to care about the 99.999% of the US population where the democrats pay lip service to that group but still goes along with the corporate bottom line when push comes to shove. Both parties line their pockets with Wall Street $$$.

(2)(4)

William Boernkesays:

June 11, 2017 at 10:19 pm

Karin, Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) deregulated Wall Street. But Congress under President Obama produced Dodd-Frank. And now it is Republicans in Congress who want to repeal Dodd-Frank.

The historical facts are clear. All the social welfare programs produced since the Great Depression were produced by Democrats: Social Security; expanding Social Security to defendants and spouses; disability insurance; unemployment insurance; a minimum wage; Medicare; Medicaid; the ACA; and expanding Medicaid under the ACA. Republicans opposed all these social welfare programs.

The problem with Republicans is that they believe in supply-side economics (cut taxes on the wealthy to stimulate the economy) even though this produces the transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. As Warren Buffett said: "It's class warfare and my class is winning." It is too bad modern Republicans do not have the brains of Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy was outraged by wealth inequality during the Gilded Age (the 1% controlled 50% of the wealth in the country). So, he proposed steeply graduated income and inheritance taxes to redistribute the wealth.

Republicans oppose social welfare programs (entitlements) becuase they are Social Darwinists. The rich are rich because they are more fit than the poor who are less fit because they are dependent on the government. This is all nonsense because the logic is circular. If I am rich, then it is because I am more fit and if I am more fit, then this is evident in the fact I am rich, So, taxing the rich to help the poor is evil because this upsets survival of the fittest.

(14)(1)

Karin Eckvallsays:

June 13, 2017 at 1:48 am

Dodd-Frank doesn't end to big too fail, and Obama could have made helping homeowners a condition of the bank bailout and did not. Anyway, you're talking New Dealers and I'm talking Neoliberals, spearheaded by Bill Clinton who decided to co-opt Republican issues (tough on crime; welfare "reform"; deregulation; debt reduction) while simultaneously trashing liberals/progressive issues...You know, the famous Clinton triangulation.

(4)(3)

Susan Benton says:

June 11, 2017 at 7:53 pm

Ok, I read a lot of the comments after this article. I happen to believe that all of us, right, left or center are currently in a very precarious position because of our current government. Let's agree to disagree and stop going over how we got here and who we can blame for it. What happened can't be changed. We must start talking about what is happening right now. Please. If
you read my posting again Karin you will see that my "cherry picking" as you put it has nothing to do with how we got here or fault for anything.
I am very concerned about what is going on right now. Hillary Clinton is over, she lost,
let it go! Every thing I brought up with the exception of interest rates on school loans is happening now. I'm concerned because if each item I listed actually occurrs it will hurt a lot of people. Fact: The current majority party in Congress has been attempting to pass a healthcare bill that we know will result in about 23 million people
losing their healthcare along with millions more who have pre-existing
conditions. Let's sideline the "empathy" factor as irrelevant. That healthcare bill will result in millions losing health insurance. That isn't good or desirable for any of us. Here's why, those who lose healthcare will wind up going to emergency and urgent care facilities just like they did before Obamacare. Those facilities have historically been the most expensive way to get treatment. This is important because our tax dollars will wind up paying for some of that expensive treatment. We don't really think about this issue because the
payments aren't readily apparent to us. We pay our taxes and have no idea what percentage of it gets used for that purpose. Another aspect of this is that people who are chronically ill often can't work, or work sporadically. That means that those people will not be contributing much to our economy because they can't afford to buy much. A robust economy requires a robust, healthy work force.
Fact: The majority party in Congress
is proposing to remove most of the banking regulations that were put in place after the 2008 financial meltdown. Those regulations were implemented specifically to prevent Wall Street from running amok again. Maybe they aren't perfect, but
99.9 percent of us lost a lot of savings and retirement nest eggs and many lost their homes. I don't want to go through that again, do you?
We can have a say about these
issues RIGHT NOW.

(8)(3)

Karin Eckvallsays:

June 13, 2017 at 1:51 am

But much of this same thing was happening under Obama and Democrats were silent or make excuses instead of calling him on it. And judging from your comments, I'm sure you'll find a way to make excuses for the next Neoliberal president Democrats elect who elects to serve the rich and powerful instead of the rest of us.

(3)(1)

William Boernkesays:

June 11, 2017 at 10:29 pm

Susan, Hillary did not lose because she got a plurality of the votes of the people. The Donald won because he got a majority of the votes of unelected electors. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Ironically, the founders were afraid of democracy because they thought it would lead to mob rule (as happened in the French Revolution when the mob chopped off the heads of the king and Aristocrats and took their land and divided it up among themselves--the French Revolution was a Marxist revolution of class warfare before Marx was born). So, the founders allowed only white, male property-holders to vote and they could only vote on members of the House of Representatives. Senators were selected by state legislatures and presidents were elected by electors chosen by state legislatures. We have amended the Constituion to produce universal adult suffrage and to directly elect Senators. It is high time we amend the Constitution to get rid of the undemocratic Electoral College.

In the recent French election, no candidate got a majority, but Macron got a plurality of the votes, just like Hillary. Since the French have democracy, they had a runoff election between Macron and Le Pen. This means that the president will necessarily have a majority of the votes cast, unlike the US where we have a president who was rejected by a majority of the voters.

(11)(1)

Robert Bornemansays:

June 9, 2017 at 11:28 pm

An odd bit of lack of empathy caused me to NOT vote for Hillary. I supported Sanders because of his environmental positions (identifying global climate destabilization as our #1 national security threat, for example), for which I severely disliked Hillary "Fracking Queen" Clinton, along with her hawkishness, and her focus-group prevarications (not supporting gay rights until it was safe to do so, etc.).

My advocacy for environmental issues was translated by many, many, many Democrats as "racism" and "sexism" and shoved in my face as such. Consequently, *I* lost empathy for lefty liberals who supported Clinton and, honest to say, given the resistance Trump has engendered, am STILL glad he beat the cheating, lying, manipulative, insincere politician she had revealed herself to be.

(25)(62)

William Boernkesays:

June 11, 2017 at 10:35 pm

Uh, Robert, you voted agains Hillary because you don't like her. This allowed The Donald to become president. How is that a rational thing to do?

In 1933 in Germany, the German industrialists were deathly afraid of a Marxist Revolution and wanted Hitler in power because at least he was not a communist. They got their wish, an anti-communist in power, but the world got the shaft: WWII and the Holocaust.

You got your wish: Hillary is not in power and now we will all get the shaft.

(26)(4)

Walter Pewensays:

June 9, 2017 at 10:56 pm

It's sort of a given. Even with so many of our Democratic states persons living high in this second Gilded Age (Pelosi, Schumer) the liberals are most ALWAYS the ones with empathy. But many of us have empathy burn out---Reagan taught if nothing else that when people are nice to you it's just fine to kick them in the juevos in the name of country, but most important, COMMERCE.
Realistically, most of Red State America is unreachable. The ethos there has been resentment they've been force fed by yes, the media. It's not going to stop anytime soon. Even if they got their Medicare for all, many of the whites would complain endlessly about the libtards forcing something on them. They've in large part been dumbed down to maybe say, Trump's verbal age (5th) grade and it's working just fine, or so they think. Pass the oxy, crank, and booze. For there is no tomorrow that they can see at this time.

(28)(9)

Leslie M Feuillesays:

June 9, 2017 at 10:13 pm

Liberal elites are the problem, along with conservative elites and phony right wing populists like Trump. Empathy is not directly the problem. That would be the failure to fight for policies that would ease the pressure to lower income people so they can breath again and just maybe get ahead. Defending the ACA as adequate with just a few adjustments is the problem. Failure to get behind a living wage is the problem. Allowing banks to continue to fleece the 99% after trashing the economy is the problem. Ignoring the effect of gentrification on the middle and working class is the problem. Ect, etc. etc. Neoliberalism is the problem. Lack of empathy because they are so far remove from the struggles of the working class could be part of the explanation for why elites act in this fashion. Another is that they personally gain from letting Wall Street subvert democracy is another possibility. What ever the reason, liberal elites are definitely part of the problem.

(37)(6)

Stan Buchanansays:

June 10, 2017 at 12:18 am

Banks? Ain't seen nuthin' yet. The Republicans are fixin' to blow up Dodd-Frank. So hold on to your hat.

(27)(0)

Karin Eckvallsays:

June 10, 2017 at 1:06 am

As opposed to the Savings & Loan crisis and the Great Recession...facilitated by Bill Clinton deregulating banks and Timothy Geithner failing to properly regulate Wall St. as head of the NY fed and Hillary voting for the bankruptcy bill that killed average Americans and students and was a cash cow for banks?

(17)(12)

Norman Conradsays:

June 9, 2017 at 8:31 pm

The problem, as I see it, is that many Democratic leaders, most really, in DC and in state capitols acress the country may have a great deal of empathy, but they have the most empathy for themselves and their fame/career. There is no other explanation for their utter failure to pass programs when they had majorities that solved obvious problems faced by most Americans but instead passed laws to the advantage of the already advantaged.

Empathy is not the problem. The problem is the nearly total lack of constructive results.

(33)(7)

Paul Marionisays:

June 9, 2017 at 4:16 pm

Hillary Clinton lost because 90 Million registered voters DID NOT vote. She was an uninspiring candidate with the hubris that she deserved to be President. Her whole campaign (18 months and 2 Billion dollars ) consisted of "everything is fine, let's just stay on path". During the 18 months she talked about issues exactly 32 minutes, never once mentioned the environment. And, she did promote fracking all over the world. Of course The Clinton Foundation took in 1.2Billion dollars while she was Secretary of State. How has the other 99% fared under Obama? Why can't Democrats or Liberals accept the fact that she lost because she was a flawed candidate, not because of Comey or the Russians. WAKE UP or we are going to keep losing elections. "Most qualified candidate in history" lost to the "worst candidate in history". The lesser of two evils and hubris have run their course. 90 Million Americans are sick of both. The progressive youth are our only hope.

(56)(31)

Bill Ehrhornsays:

June 10, 2017 at 1:23 am

Hillary could be flawed but not as flawed as those she was running against and a sure of a lot better than Deadbeat Trump. Only losers and liars make excuses. Unfortunately, you sound like you've given up. To bad. PS: She kicked Deadbeat Trump's butt in the popular vote but lost because of the antiquated electoral college which should be scrapped.

(26)(8)

Donald Handysays:

June 9, 2017 at 4:46 pm

What in the world does this have to do with the subject matter of the article?

(39)(13)

Rhonda D Wrightsays:

June 9, 2017 at 3:39 pm

Amen, amen, amen!

(8)(2)

Maria De La Guardiasays:

June 9, 2017 at 1:20 pm

We're trying to empathize because we're the ones who lost the election. We're the ones who must build bridges with a coalition that we need in order to be in power again—a coalition that, while in parts deplorable, does make some valid points about class and inequality; a coalition with whom we can find some common ground. Finally, we're trying to empathize because we CAN. As liberals, that is our strength. We thrive through inclusion, not exclusion.

(31)(16)

Elizabeth Gioumousissays:

February 12, 2018 at 6:35 am

Focusing on voting rights might be more useful than empathizing. Or at least, empathize all you want, it's always a good thing, but also focus on voting rights.

(0)(0)

Carl Gilbertsensays:

June 9, 2017 at 12:36 pm

This article has been written about 20 times already.

No one is saying "be empathetic"

They're saying stop being so fucking condescending and derisive about the poor, most of whom dont' vote.

(35)(41)

Carla Skidmoresays:

June 9, 2017 at 8:50 pm

Many of the poor did not vote due to gerrymandering, needless Voter I.D.

(27)(2)

Roger Hoffmannsays:

June 9, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Ms. Pollitt, I can imagine that it may be difficult to see, when you focus so much of your gaze on identity politics, the deeper, more fundamental problems that weaken the standing of those who empathize with the poor or the oppressed.

As others note, the great unrest in this nation ultimately is more a product of the grand neoliberal "bargain" than anything else; and it can not be satisfied merely with empathy.

The subverting of broad public interests for those of the (yes) moneyed elites, the losses of industry, jobs and economic security in the globalists' push toward lowest-common-denominator labor markets, draining of the public treasury to maintain the perpetual war state and other imperialist imperatives, and the steady growth of the wealth & income gaps that corresponds with growing corruption and the supplanting of all but vestigial hints of "democracy" by oligarchy: those are the products of this neoliberal / neoconservative bargain. And in turn, a volatile, frustrated electorate.

Of course the latter is not homogeneous; it includes yes, reactionary elements that may include misogyny, xenophobia and bigotries of all forms as well as a tendency towards dog-eat-dog, "every man for himself" responses; all of which can be easily manipulated by the likes of a Trump and the GOP.

That dynamic will likely always be with us. So it might be better to ask more about what allows it to arise to power, if not the absence of a politics that actually addresses the sources of those underlying economic fears that both fuel the expression of bigotry and lead the gullible to believe those who calculatingly only appear to be on their side.

As long as the Democratic Party's establishment continues to push a neoliberal agenda whose net effects differ only in the size of crumbs offered to placate various social identity groups, they, and democracy itself, will lose. Elections will remain contests wherein various social identity groups line up on sides while a majority sit on the sidelines refusing to take part in what appears to be a calculated farce - a carefully scripted illusion that regular people have any power at all.

(72)(21)

Cara Mariannasays:

June 11, 2017 at 4:43 pm

Bang! The sound of a nail being driven into the coffin of neoliberalism and the self-righteous whining and deflection of the liberal commentariat.

Thank you, Roger Hoffmann!

(5)(1)

Laura Rosesays:

June 9, 2017 at 3:26 pm

Now this is condescending. Ouch.

(20)(19)

Roger Hoffmannsays:

June 9, 2017 at 3:39 pm

To whom is it condescending? To Ms. Pollitt? Not at all: her focus on identity politics is her well-known claim to fame, after all. And to put it more succinctly, it is such that is the problem, because it enables those who perpetuate the more fundamental problems I noted - and the resultant divisions - and that ultimately leads to the Trumps of the world. Perhaps it would be worth reading the recent interview of Noam Chomsky in this regard: https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/

(31)(9)

Karin Eckvallsays:

June 9, 2017 at 12:17 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG7w3Oey3xs

(2)(2)

Tom Clarksays:

June 9, 2017 at 11:59 am

Thanks Katha!

(16)(8)

Anne Eldersays:

June 9, 2017 at 11:55 am

Thank you Katha, finally, someone has addressed the ongoing phony meme about the "liberal elites" maligning the people who supported Donald Trump. The only people who use the words like "elite" and "envy" as weapons have been right wing commentators pandering to their apparently captive audiences.

(50)(20)

Karin Eckvallsays:

June 10, 2017 at 1:11 am

Have you forgotten "deplorables" already?

(7)(6)

Yiren Lyusays:

June 9, 2017 at 11:29 am

No, empathy is not the problem. That empathy wall really is an ideological one, because you are too busy attacking other people along the liberal/conservative line within your ideological bubble. What you think is racist misogynist platform is as normal as they come to a lot of voters (they don't get to consume some liberal wisdom that supposedly would automatically enlighten them reactionary voters). What they see in Trump is a vote against the bipartisan liberal establishment, which really serve the oligarchic capitalists than anyone else; a vote for someone who has provided a narrative(however mythical it is) that seem to be relevant to their daily lives and their identities; they see someone who at least offers something. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, did not even bother to offer those people any substance, precisely because the status quo neoliberal establishment has no real solution. An empty box not much deeper than its superficial brand.
I just read about how Bernie people and Corbyn people engage voters at the grassroots level, how they really are communicating progressive platforms. Guess what, in merely few weeks, Corbyn is able to turn the table and gain seats despite tremendous opposition coming from the government, his own party and the media establishment, destroying Tories' projected landslide mandate. Because when you actually talk to people and offer them a REAL alternative, many of them do change their minds. And without a real alternative, more people will join the right side of the spectrum. In comparison, this article looks like something written by a grumpy 13-year-old who could not contain his/her primal instincts. Also good luck in Paris with that "progressive" center-right President Macron.

(48)(25)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

June 9, 2017 at 11:15 am

Why aren’t political policies that makes people’s lives better endorsed by right–wingers? Because FAR too many “Liberals” don’t support and FIGHT for such policies either.

The top Liberal Democratic politicians (the Clintons, Pelosi, Obummer, Biden, etc.) differ from the Right only in the degree of their indifference and opposition to many of the MOST empathetic policy prescriptions; national health care, military budget reductions, demanding a reduction in arbitrary police powers, an end to Middle East “wars”, reduction of imperialist military bases all over the world, resistance to the promotion of “free market” economic fantasies, and on and on

How do words like “feminazi” become wide–spread? Because “liberal” idiots like Chris Mathews make a habit out of showcasing video and audio from right–wing provocateurs, like drug addict Rush Limbaugh and propagandists from FOX, and many others, without unrelenting condemnation, so they too can claim to be “fair and balanced”.

ESPECIALLY since the Bill Clinton ran for the Office, the Democratic wing of the CRONY CAPITALIST PARTY (CCP), which administers the wishes of the “USA Plutocratic Corporate State”, made the evaluation that what passes for “The Left” in the USA has “nowhere to go” in this two–party political system.

The supine and incompetent “Left” could safely be ignored and marginalized, their timidity easily herded into obedience by merely evoking the specter of the Republikkklan Wing of the CCP. That Right Wing of USA politics has been even more Authoritarian and Rabid in their service to the “1%” within all living memory, and beyond.

The next move in the Democrat’s simplistic process of triangulation was to invade and usurp political positions previously held by the Right Wing of the CCP, having correctly predicted that the Left would not have the courage to fight the rightward drift.

Today, the Democrat’s movement of the political spectrum has veered so far into Right Wing territory, the infamous Richard Nixon would be considered a “Liberal”, were he alive today.

The Republikkklans only method of counter–attack was to move even further right and mobilize the OVERTLY racist, misogynist, xenophobic, superstitious, anti–intellectual, and fascist portions of the population that had been previously ostracized from participation in power at the Federal level of Government.

Democrats continued to slime their way even further to the right to pilfer more of the Republikkklan base. Desperate to remain in the contest for power, the Right Wing decided to OPENLY court even the actively traitorous residue of the Fringe Right; secessionists, anti–government libertarians, and advocates for an avowedly un–Constitutional Christian Caliphate.

The result to date; a life–long Goldwater Girl fronted the Democrat Party, and Donald Trump, a certified Buffoon and Con Artist, won the Presidency because there wasn’t anyone speaking to the “left of center”, and Trump was the only candidate who actually could be believed when he said that he would change The Game at all.

(40)(19)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

June 9, 2017 at 11:23 am

We need an effective third political party. That is the traditional response to the current conditions.

(Re–brand the Green Party as the New USA Party and ensure that the Left agenda has a place on the ballot because the Democrats are NOT going to ever do that. They are avowedly "center–right" and "republikkklan–lite" is the best we can hope from them.)

(23)(12)

Kermit Davissays:

June 9, 2017 at 5:17 pm

I'm not sure what you mean by a third party being a "traditional response". I would love to see a parliamentarian-type system in the United States, but it isn't going to happen. A third party option worked against the Republicans and against George H. W. Bush to get Bill Clinton elected (barely). It worked against Al Gore in 2000 to get George W. Bush elected. Then, in 2004 the Democratic party had a left-leaning candidate in John Kerry and got killed in the election. And in 2016, the boondoggle third party candidacy of Jill Stein was a major factor in getting Donald J. Trump elected. The Democratic party has to be pushed to the left and it is. The Sander's campaign showed that. But for God's sake get a grip on reality about this third party stuff. If the Green Party was such an attractive alternative, why did so many Americans sit out the election of 2016? Why didn't they flock to this third party alternative? Get involved at the local and state levels to move the Democratic party to the left. Otherwise, be content for another eight-year run for DJT, like the eight years of GWB.

(11)(4)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

June 10, 2017 at 3:09 pm

It is ridiculous and symptomatic of the confusion in the USA's politics that an absolute centrist like John Kerry can be evoked as representing the Legitimate Left to any degree. He is a Clinton/Obama Liberal, that is to say "republikkklan–lite".

Also, you are delusional if you think that the Democrats have been recently pushed to the Left. Dazzle me with those new leftist policies the Party has adopted and announced. Please.

The rightward decline has been persistent since 1944, when Truman was given the presidential nomination over Henry Wallace, despite Wallace's greater support among the rank and file.

(9)(2)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

June 10, 2017 at 11:08 am

From the beginning of this Republic, and continuing to this day, there were always multiple political parties; the Whigs, the Federalists, the Bull Mose, the Black Panthers (yes; they formed a party), and there are at least thirty tiny and ineffective parties perking along today. That is the tradition I refer to.

The Greens represent the best alternative for immediate results if captured by the unorganized Legitimate Left. Don’t try to tell me that it is risky to expand the political alternatives. It is precisely THAT philosophy of maintaining a duopoly that has directly resulted in the victory of Trump.

It is the LACK of a true leftist alternative that moves the political landscape inexorably to the Right.

Also, Sanders is proof of how it is IMPOSSIBLE to move the Democratic Party. After the extraordinary and obviously required effort to support Sanders and shift the political inertia leftward, what was the result?

Goldwater Girl got the nomination AND her stooges subsequently retained ownership and direction of the Party apparatus, as witness by the installation of the Clinton political infrastructure winning the follow–up leadership battle. As a Leftist, I lost the post–election too. MY agenda is NOT being represented. Today, and for a long time, the Democrat Party has NOT been worthy of my support.

The Democratic Party is centrist–right. If The Left ever intends to have their agenda brought forward, they need a Leftist Party that will produce Leftist candidates and policies without compromise, apologies, and infighting among internal saboteurs.

The current policy makers are intellectually and spiritually bankrupt. Sanity has lost the argument about the direction that the Human Race must pursue. There is a desperate need for a clean break from the insanity. A legitimately Leftist Party is merely the first immediate step. THEN, and ONLY then, the real battles may be undertaken.

(9)(5)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

June 10, 2017 at 11:32 am

You must understand that from the perspective
of a strong Leftist, a "Legitimate Leftist", Obama was
an eight–year disaster, for many, many reasons.
If you believe that Obama represented “The Left”,
you literally don’t know what you are talking about.

He can only be portrayed as a member of the Left,
when compared to the Far Right, who DO NOT
legitimately define what a Leftist agenda would mean.

If you don't agree with that, which is your right,
you have been fooled by what the Republikkklans
would LIKE the USA to define as "the Left",
simply for the purpose of narrowing the political spectrum
by misidentifying the REAL extent of modern political thought.

(9)(3)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

June 10, 2017 at 3:22 pm

If The Nation magazine desires to be evaluated
as a real voice for Left Wing politics in the USA,
it's required that a centrist, blue dog Democrat
like Pollitt be released from The Nation.

Just by being a Democrat, it DOES NOT FOLLOW
that she is a Legitimate Leftist.

Obviously, Pollitt is a centrist. If that's what
The Nation now aspires to represent, then
keep Katha, and John Nichols, and Joan Walsh,
but give up the pretense of being an organ of The Left.